(13-11-2013 01:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote: Yes, because I live in a non-retarded country.
I said a lot of other things too, purhaps you should read those.

And credit default swaps are the reason for the bubble that was created that eventually busted.

Are you going to refer to any of Muff's other points?

I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination; all I have in this area is a vague understanding of currency value and Supply & Demand.

However, the ideas expressed above do vaguely interest me and frankly I'd like to see where it goes. As such, hop to it; get to arguing for your points!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

1. Execute all the prisoners on death row (228k per year per prisoner to maintain)
2. Cease imprisoning Petty offenders (228k per year per prisoner) instead put them in a behavioral reform institution (31k per year per inmate)
3. Stop religious tax exemptions, I don't have the exact number from FY 13 but it was something in the high billions (71 Billion sounds right, but I'm not 100% sure).
4. Cease allowing special interest in politics (bribes/lobbyists for oil companies, big banks, etc.)
5. Make congress like Jury duty, selectively choose from a random pool of people and make it a required Federal duty once in your lifetime...with a stipend to provide for all necessities while in office (same office terms)
6. Re-write any state constitution that nullify's Federal law (because that kinda deletes the purpose of federal law)
7. Marijuana legal and regulated with heavy taxes (similar to Smoking/Alcohol)
8. Raise minimum wage to match inflation (I.e California has a 12.50 Minimum wage, when Cost of living is in the $18 dollar an hour range)

I have other's but these are the big ones.

Also, I would go into shutting down insurance companies and providing medical care off all the money we would save off 1, 2 and 3. But people seem to love this idea of paying for a human right.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"

(12-11-2013 11:44 PM)I and I Wrote: And no I don't care if someone dislikes his own countrymen enough to leave and take his company somewhere else. Nobody is making them stay or leave. You act as if there is something special about people like bill gates, as if without them life would be bad.

That is the stupidest statement: You chase them out of the country, beating them to a pulp, insisting they are evil, despicable scum deserving of nothing but a whipping because they are successful. And then once they're gone, you claim they were "traitors" who just didn't like their countrymen.

More telling is we now see how Stalin and Pol Pot evolved. They start out saying the same thing. But then when Bill Gates actually leaves, it's not just one man. It's the hundreds of products he invents, and hundreds of billions in sales revenue (and tax revenue) that they create, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs. And then when Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other brightest and best leave because you have chased them away, you find your economy in ruins. So you surround your country with walls and armed border guards to keep them from escaping, turning your country into a giant prison, and also isolating yourself from the rest of the world. Until the whole thing collapses or you become North Korea.

You must obviously not believe what you write because if you did, you would simply move to North Korea where your utopian vision exists in real life. I _DO_ believe what I write, and therefore I _DID_ move to Switzerland, the closest place I found to a libertarian paradise on earth. And I was very happy there. The country is safe, sound and prosperous. My only problem was that Switzerland is still within reach of the US, and US has thousands of agents around the world, including Switzerland, to track down Americans who have defected and force us to send back to the US everything we accomplish. It's life-long indentured servitude. But you don't have that problem. The US has no agents in North Korea. You can immigrate there and you are free and out of reach. So why are you still complaining? Why not get on a flight and make your escape to the one communist paradise left on earth?

(12-11-2013 11:47 PM)earmuffs Wrote: You use the services of the armed forces (they defend your oil, ehh I mean human liberties). You use the police, firemen, judicial etc... etc... etc...
You use all these services... Income tax is the best way to pay for these things as it's the most fair.

Not sure about NZ, but here in the US all those valuable services we all need are handled at the local level and paid for NOT with income taxes, but with property taxes. The only thing we get for our federal income tax is wars, which only make us less safe. Remember the US Federal Government shut down for a month recently, and life went on as usual for us in the private sector. Everything continued normally WITHOUT the Federal Government.

As far as it being fair. Take two twin brothers, identical in every way; same job, same IQ, same health, live together in the same house. They both decide they don't want to keep working 40 hours/week, but one decides to cut back to 20 hours/week vs. the other decides to work overtime and put in 60 hours/week. Why is it "fair" that the "lazy" one should be rewarded, and the "hard worker" should be punished with higher taxes and higher tax rates? He's not using any more government services. And even if the two still paid the same total tax, the "hard worker" is already contributing more anyway because he's increasing gdp, more output, more production, and more money in the local economy.

Since taxing something always discourages that activity being taxed, I think consumption/property taxes are MUCH more logical since they encourage making income (and gdp), they just discourage extravagance, so people are directed to make as much as they can and invest it wisely, building new enterprises, etc. Income tax, however, discourages income, which income comes from working, therefore it discourages the one thing that is most important to our species: work. Especially highly progressive income taxes, there comes a point of diminishing returns where it makes more sense to sit on the sofa and watch tv than to actually innovate and create because you'll hit the next tax bracket.

Also, list the strongest growth countries where people are working the hardest: nearly all of them have low or no income tax. Go to places where the tax rate is highest, like Sweden, France, etc., you find 35 hour work weeks, 2 months vacation, etc. There's something to be said for the Swedish/French system _IF_ you're doing it voluntarily because you want more leisure time. _BUT_ since the people who really are hard working over-achievers, and who want to work longer, harder and make more, are discouraged from doing so, that's the problem imo.

(13-11-2013 01:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote: Yes, because I live in a non-retarded country.
I said a lot of other things too, purhaps you should read those.

And credit default swaps are the reason for the bubble that was created that eventually busted.

This is overly simplistic. Credit default swaps are nothing more than a form of insurance against an investment in loans going south. If a bank loans money and the recipient defaults on their loan, the credit default swap pays the lender who took out this policy.

The real reason for the financial crisis:
--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had as their charters the goal of making loans more affordable. They buy mortgages from banks who originate the loans, pool them up and sell these securities to investors. These government sponsored entities were encouraged through government oversight and regulation to make loans available to higher risk borrowers in order to increase home ownership in the US.

--Meanwhile, Bush saw that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled too many high risk loans and sought to reign in lending standards. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,originally set up by the government to make home loans affordable, are government sponsored entities and were perceived to be credit default-proof because of their pseudo government status. It was assumed that Freddie and Fannie were free of risk because of an implied government backstop. As private companies, investors allowed Fannie and Freddie to leverage up to levels well beyond what any private company would be allowed to get away with. Democrats blocked multiple times the Bush admin's attempts to limit the mix of high risk loans enabled by Fannie and Freddie and to lower their leverage.

--Meanwhile, private banks saw something that was almost too good to be true. They could charge higher interests for riskier loans. They didn't have government backing like Fannie and Freddi, but they could buy credit default swaps to insure their investment. Loan originators meanwhile found they could sell almost any loan to Fannie, Freddie, or a these private institutions.

--Seeing what a good deal high risk mortgage lending seemed to be for investors, Wallstreet has a brilliant idea to create baskets of high risk loans, pool those loans together into one fund so that they could sell shares of interest in the basket of loans. These CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) were sold on the open market. This allowed financial investors to inject more money into the mortgage market than had happened before when Fannie and Freddie were the only real players in this type of investment. Loan originators for these CDOs had lax approval standards that banks originating loans directly would never have. Because there was no directly invested owner of these loans overseeing how these pools of loans were originated, there was effectively a free for all on how these loans were written--no income verification, no standards whatsoever.

--Once investment banks bought these CDOs, they went to the market to buy credit default swaps. They were just being prudent by buying insurance so that if their investment in CDOs failed, they would recoup their losses. Now, here is what the real problem was with credit default swaps. AIG cornered the market on this kind of insurance. AIG was not properly backstopped against claims against the insurance policies they sold to investment bankers. The reason the US government had to intervene and buy AIG was to prevent the entire collapse of the financial system. As soon as AIG was not able to pay out its insurance claims to investors who bought these policies, this triggered defaults on the loans these investors took on to make these CDO investments. Once AIG failed, the house of cards would fall.

The sad thing is that too few people understand what I laid out above. It's too complicated, and people's eyes glaze over. What's even more sad is that the regulations passed to address the recent crisis did absolutely nothing about the causes of this crisis. Our financial institutions are still too big such that if they failed like AIG did, they could take out the economy (so called 'too big to fail').

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 1. Execute all the prisoners on death row (228k per year per prisoner to maintain)

I can't agree with this one, purely because I disagree with the death penalty in general.
I also get the feeling that the majority of money spent in the prison system would mostly be maintenance of long-term guests; violent offenders, frequent re-offenders etc. As opposed to the death row guys. In addition to small-time offenders.

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 2. Cease imprisoning Petty offenders (228k per year per prisoner) instead put them in a behavioral reform institution (31k per year per inmate)

What exactly would you refer to as a 'petty offence'? Purse snatching to general one-time theft and at what point do they become major offences in reference to re-offending?

I ask this because I can see the appeal to this idea, I like the idea of Reformative Theory of Criminal Justice, at least I find I find it to be a preferable alternative to Retributive and extreme-scale Deterrent and Preventative Theories which in extremes can end in death penalties.
However, Reformative Theory is still relatively new and unproven; it doesn't have a good enough success rate to bank on entirely as the primary Criminal Justice Theory of a nation just yet. But it must be said that no, no Theory I am aware of has a very good success rate; only absolute extreme Retributive/Deterrent/Preventative has a big success rate and that is only because it kills off the enough offenders to say "We have a less than 50% reoffence rate!" (or something to that line)... because most of the criminals are in for life, or death or already dead; it doesn't stop crime however which should be the point...

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 3. Stop religious tax exemptions, I don't have the exact number from FY 13 but it was something in the high billions (71 Billion sounds right, but I'm not 100% sure).

I can see the good in this idea also, here in Aus churches are taxed to a degree (unless they can prove to provide a charitable service), but in places like the US, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Australia has a decent history of being a fair bit less religion focused than the US, but with the State-Church separation preventing the two mixing (in most peoples interpretation) taxing them could be seen as a violation of Church autonomy from the State and justify preachers telling their congregations from voting for or churches making their own parties (for obvious reasons).

This makes sense but how would you do it? Political parties need funding to run so the get it from corporations in turn for their support and protection in legislation. It's an easily manipulated system, but how would you fix it?

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 5. Make congress like Jury duty, selectively choose from a random pool of people and make it a required Federal duty once in your lifetime...with a stipend to provide for all necessities while in office (same office terms)

I get the feeling most would not be happy with their elected officials being replaced by bozos who would likely hold even less trust than the average politico.

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 6. Re-write any state constitution that nullify's Federal law (because that kinda deletes the purpose of federal law)

People wont like it when you strip away their states ability to deal with it's own problems, but again I get it; here in Aus Federal law is given top billing above any and all State laws which might contradict them.

(13-11-2013 09:44 AM)Likos02 Wrote: 7. Marijuana legal and regulated with heavy taxes (similar to Smoking/Alcohol)
8. Raise minimum wage to match inflation (I.e California has a 12.50 Minimum wage, when Cost of living is in the $18 dollar an hour range)

The marijuana would make a decent amount of revenue, and I am sure the brownie industry would go through the roof with that. Plus raising minimum wage lets people have more money to by the crap and thus fund the snacks industry. Everybody wins with these two!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

(12-11-2013 09:33 PM)Question Wrote: Truthfully, I can barley afford food as is, junk food is a hella a lot cheaper. If good healthy food went down in price I'd be pretty fucking happy, versus everything going up.

That is where the wage increase comes in, companies would have to compete with other companies for labor because businesses would start paying higher wages to get loans and grants.

At the cost of product they could have used the money to produce more goods and services. So higher wages = less goods + services = less money.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: I can't agree with this one, purely because I disagree with the death penalty in general.
I also get the feeling that the majority of money spent in the prison system would mostly be maintenance of long-term guests; violent offenders, frequent re-offenders etc. As opposed to the death row guys. In addition to small-time offenders.

Your probably right, I'm mostly opposed to spending more on prisoners than we do our elderly. I like Sherrif Arpaio's prison system, inmates are given just enough food to sustain their life, they are forced to work on county land to better the community and are paid $3 an hour for their work, and are allowed to purchase extra food from guards. They also live in Pink tents, wear pink jumpsuits, and are only given the minimal amount of medical care to survive. It's Archaic, but it is effective as a rehabilitative punishment, as well as costing his county millions less than the rest of arizona's prison system.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: What exactly would you refer to as a 'petty offence'? Purse snatching to general one-time theft and at what point do they become major offences in reference to re-offending?

Petty offense:Pretty much any misdemeanor...first time theft, first time assault (under certain conditions), possession of cat 1,2,3 drugs (should be in rehab anyways, not prison)....things that are minor offences, or first time offences. Anything repeat or Felony type (murder, rape, etc.) goes to above mentioned tent city prison.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: I can see the good in this idea also, here in Aus churches are taxed to a degree (unless they can prove to provide a charitable service), but in places like the US, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Australia has a decent history of being a fair bit less religion focused than the US, but with the State-Church separation preventing the two mixing (in most peoples interpretation) taxing them could be seen as a violation of Church autonomy from the State and justify preachers telling their congregations from voting for or churches making their own parties (for obvious reasons).

I see this alot actually. The argument of "well then they can have religious political parties" and I retort "have you seen republicans recently? They are already a theocratic party". It's already in politics, all they are getting right now is a free ride.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: This makes sense but how would you do it? Political parties need funding to run so the get it from corporations in turn for their support and protection in legislation. It's an easily manipulated system, but how would you fix it?

I'd say get rid of parties in the first place, but they will always be there unless something drastic happens. Protection in legislation and support is the problem in the first place, in a true democracy, only the people matter, but in a capitalist republic, only revenue matters. So the people are being sidelined for profit. I don't know how I'd do it honestly, without getting too extreme it would be pretty hard. Capitalism and human greed sucks.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: I get the feeling most would not be happy with their elected officials being replaced by bozos who would likely hold even less trust than the average politico.

But yet the Justice system uses this type of selection on a regular basis. I would feel like an average joe in the congress would have a better grasp on reality than the corporate ceo or constitutional lawyers we have in congress right now that act like children and throw tantrums whenever they don't get what they want.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: People wont like it when you strip away their states ability to deal with it's own problems, but again I get it; here in Aus Federal law is given top billing above any and all State laws which might contradict them.

I'm not saying take away states rights when it comes to their own justice system. But, for instance, having a law (cough kentucky) that would nullify any gun ban the US federal law passed, completely defeats the purpose of having a federal court in the first place. Federal Trumps state, period, its what checks and balances are there for in the first place, to ensure no power is overused.

(13-11-2013 02:57 PM)Free Thought Wrote: The marijuana would make a decent amount of revenue, and I am sure the brownie industry would go through the roof with that. Plus raising minimum wage lets people have more money to by the crap and thus fund the snacks industry. Everybody wins with these two!

I agree completely, the goal here is to boost the economy, we might have to break a nail and some peoples feelings for the betterment of the country. Sorry but thats life.

Shock And Awe Tactics-- The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible"